We love it.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/23/23-50669-CV0.pdf
Was Andreas co-authoring this ?
you don´t need any text-book on Ether any more, do you ?
______________
"The use of mixers like the Tornado Cash immutable smart contracts
is,
well,
mixed.
For example, law-abiding cryptocurrency users employ
mixers to maintain anonymity concerning their net worth, spending habits, and donations to political causes. Mixers can also be used to thwart criminals that would use this information to identify potential victims or set up phishing schemes.
For example, plaintiff Joseph Van Loon sought to use Tornado Cash to run a blockchain service without falling prey to malicious cyberattacks.
Plaintiff Tyler Almeida used Tornado Cash to anonymously donate to the Ukrainian war effort because he was worried that Russian hacker groups would target him specifically if they were able to easily trace the donation back to him.
Plaintiff Kevin Vitale turned to Tornado Cash after learning that someone had linked his crypto activities to his physical address.
Plaintiff Alexander Fisher used Tornado Cash to develop code that improved Case: 23-50669 Document: 123-1 Page: 12 Date Filed: 11/26/2024 No. 23-50669 13 the uses of the Ethereum blockchain network.
And plaintiff Nate Welch used Tornado Cash to protect his privacy and to avoid harassment from malicious actors."
well, it´s very mixed up, right ?
"Nearly a quarter of funds sent to mixers in 2022 were tied to money laundering efforts."
"
The International Emergency Economic Powers Act
>>
The President (Obama)
>>
Department of the Treasury
>>
The Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC)
issues regulations
including definitional regulations for the words “person ”, “entity”, “property”, and “interest.”
OFAC .... identified Tornado Cash as an entity organized by and under its
DAO, and in doing so blocked “all real, personal, and other property and
interests in property” of the designated Tornado Cash entity subject to U.S. jurisdiction.
OFAC ... added Tornado Cash to the SDN list
OFAC - thus - blacklisted Tornado Cash for its role in laundering virtual currency for malicious cyber actors—for example, a North Korea-linked hacking group that used Tornado Cash to launder the proceeds of cybercrimes. By adding Tornado Cash to the list of Specially Designated National and Blocked Persons (SDN), OFAC imposed an across-the-board prohibition against any dealings with Tornado Cash “property,” which OFAC defined to include open-source computer code known as “smart contracts.
The district court
granted the Department’s motion for summary judgment and denied that of the Tornado Cash users, concluding: (1) Tornado Cash is an “entity that may be properly designated as a person under IEEPA,” (2) that smart contracts constitute “property,” (3) and that the DAO, which runs Tornado Cash, has an “interest” in its smart contracts because it derives profits from its crypto mixing and relaying services that run on smart contracts.
Court of Appeals
we must affirm “if [] OFAC’s actions were not arbitrary and capricious, and were based on substantial evidence
Van Loon argues that the district court erred in giving “heightened deference” to OFAC’s definition of “property” and in finding that the immutable smart contracts met that definition.
We agree.
And because that element is dispositive, we need not address the other elements.
As usual, we start with the statutory text. Where a statute leaves
terms undefined, we accord those terms their “ordinary, contemporary,
common meaning. And the “ordinary” or “plain” meaning of “property” compels summary judgment in Van Loon’s favor.
First, take dictionary definitions ...
It also includes the right “to exclude everyone else from interfering with it."
The Supreme Court has defined property as “all objects or rights which are susceptible of ownership.” Indeed, when someone has a property interest, he or she typically has the “rights of possession and control.” And “one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property” is “the right to exclude others.”
The immutable smart contracts at issue in this appeal are not property
because they are not capable of being owned.
... no one can “exclude” anyone from using the Tornado Cash pool smart contracts
Simply put, regardless of OFAC’s designation of Tornado Cash, the immutablesmart contracts continue operating. And furthermore, because the software continues to operate regardless of the sanctions, and the blockchain technology “allows peer-to-peer transfers . . . without requiring the recipient to consent to transfer,” some users may become liable whenever someone transfers them digital assets via Tornado Cash, even without their knowledge or consent.
..
And accordingly, the immutable smart contracts are outside the scope of
OFAC’s designation authority.
To evade this requirement of “ownership,” the Department conflates
a separate element of the statute, “interest,” with “property” to suggest that “Tornado Cash profits from—and therefore has an interest in—the smart contracts that embody the mixing service it provides” and are thus analogous to patents and copyrights, which are undisputedly within the scope of OFAC’s definition of property.60 But Tornado Cash smart contracts are different from patents and copyrights ....
As a last resort, the Department emphasizes the final catch-all for
“any other property.” But the catch-all is not as expansive as the Department suggests; it still requires that “any . . . property” actually be,
well,
property. Adding an “any” before a word doesn’t change that word’s meaning.
OFAC’s definition of property includes “contracts of any nature
whatsoever,” but contrary to the Department’s argument (and the misleading name of the software), the immutable smart contracts are not
contracts.
District Court ...the district court ignored basic principles of black-letter contract law: Unilateral or not, contracts require “[a]n agreement between two or more parties.” Immutable smart contracts have only one party in play.
The Department also contends that the immutable smart contracts
qualify as “services of any nature whatsoever.”72 But the immutable smart contracts “provide . . . services”; they are not services themselves
... according to Black’s Law Dictionary, “[i]n this sense, service denotes an
intangible commodity in the form of human effort, such as labor, skill, or
advice.”
No human effort is expended by the immutable smart contracts.
... which are nothing more than lines of code
even by the Department’s definition, ... are less like a “service” and more like a tool that is used in performing a service.
That is not the same as being a service.
More importantly, Tornado Cash, as defined by OFAC, does not own
the services provided by the immutable smart contracts.
A homeowner may own the right to trash-removal services and a client may own the right to legal services performed by a lawyer, but neither the homeowner nor the client owns the person performing the trash-removal services or the lawyer—for good reason
Our Constitution’s ingenious design demands that judges be
sticklers when it comes to decoding legislative text.
immutable smart contracts are not “property”
we need not address whether Tornado Cash qualifies as an “entity” or whether it has an “interest” in the immutable smart contracts.
We readily recognize the real-world downsides of certain
uncontrollable technology falling outside of OFAC’s sanctioning authority.
....
"
_________________
we liked best in this judgment:
that and how the word “well” was used twice
the word “stickers” in this context
well done,
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
!
Wer findet den Fehler ?
